Right to your own picture (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The right to the image is in Germany a sub-case of the by Art. 2 para. 1 in connection with Art. 1 Constitution protected the right to informational self-determination . It gives the person shown the power to determine the use of the image, including the right to object to publication. In simple national law, it is protected by the law on copyright in works of the visual arts and photography (Art Copyright Act, in short: KunstUrhG) of January 9, 1907, and also by Art. 8 Para. 1 ECHR. The violation of the highly personal sphere of life through picture taking is regulated in § 201a StGB.

history

The KunstUrhG was created as a criminal law after two photographers tried to publish pictures of the dead Chancellor Otto von Bismarck . The two had previously illegally gained access to his death room .

Legal position

Today only § 22 , § 23 , § 24 and, as a criminal provision, § 33 KunstUrhG are of importance.

Section 22 of the Art Copyright Act provides:

“Images may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person depicted. In case of doubt, consent is deemed to have been given if the person depicted has received remuneration for being shown. After the death of the person depicted, the consent of the depicted's relatives is required for a period of ten years. Relatives within the meaning of this law are the surviving spouse or life partner and the children of the person depicted and, if neither a spouse or life partner nor children are present, the parents of the person depicted. "

Section 23 KunstUrhG lists exceptions:

  • (1) Without the consent required under Section 22, the following may be distributed and displayed:
    1. Portraits from the realm of contemporary history;
    2. Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location;
    3. Images of meetings, elevators and similar events in which the depicted persons participated;
    4. Portraits that are not made to order, provided that the dissemination or exhibition serves a greater interest in art.
  • (2) The authorization does not, however, extend to dissemination and display that violates a legitimate interest of the person depicted or, if he has died, his relatives.

§ 24 KunstUrhG concerns the admissibility of mug shots.

Section 33 KunstUrhG is a penal provision

  • (1) Anyone who, contrary to Sections 22 and 23, disseminates or publicly displays a portrait is punished with imprisonment for up to one year or with a fine.
  • (2) The offense will only be prosecuted upon request.

Recognizability

A portrait is not just a photograph or film, but any recognizable representation of a person, including drawings , caricatures , photomontages , cartoons , and even the appearance of a doppelganger . However, artistic images that are published fall not only under the Art Copyright Act, but also under Art. 5 Para. 3 Basic Law , which guarantees artistic freedom (see also Mephisto decision ).

Consent to publication is only required if the person depicted can be identified individually. The recognizability can also result from accompanying circumstances. Even the one used in press releases anonymization by eye beams do not eliminate these recognizability necessarily. If a person is clearly identifiable through the context, they can defend themselves against publication, even if their facial features are not shown at all. The recognizability of a person is also not lost because they have changed due to age. There is no need to prove that the person is actually recognized.

The regional court in Frankfurt am Main stated in a judgment of January 19, 2006:

“Portraits in the sense of § 22 KUG are the representation of a natural person in a way that is recognizable for third parties. Mostly the recognizability results from the depiction of the facial features. However, it is also sufficient if the person depicted - even if his face is barely or not at all recognizable - is recognizable through features that result from the picture and which are his own, or his person through the accompanying text or the context can be identified with earlier publications (see BGH NJW 1979, 2205 - football goalkeeper; Prinz / Peters, Medienrecht, margin no. 827). It is not necessary that the person depicted was actually recognized by certain people. The right to one's own picture is already violated if the person depicted has reasonable cause to fear that he could be identified. It is not necessary for the casual observer to be able to recognize the person depicted in the picture; it is sufficient to be recognizable by a more or less large circle of acquaintances (see BGH NJW 1979, 2205 - football goalkeeper; v. Strobl-Alberg in: Wenzel, Das Recht verbal and picture reporting, 5th edition, Chapter 7, margin no. 15). The decisive factor is the purpose of § 22 KUG, to protect the personality from becoming available to others against their will in the form of images. The special status of the claim that the public respects the individual's own sphere and their need for anonymity requires that such cases also be included in the protection of this provision (cf. Peters / Prinz, op. Cit.). "

The Hamburg district court ruled in a similar way about a publication in the press .

Link setting

Even setting a hyperlink to a private photo on another website can be an act of infringement in individual cases (the facts on which the judgment is based in extracts reproduced below concerned the context of the legal activity of the person depicted, i.e. a private photo was linked with a professional reference) . The Munich Higher Regional Court stated in a judgment of June 26, 2007:

"If images that can be assigned to the private sector and published on the Internet in connection with a leisure activity are linked in a report that critically deals with the legal work of the person depicted, the depicted lawyer is entitled to an injunction under § 1004 , § 823 BGB , § 22 , § 23 KunstUrhG, provided that the link to the pictures is used to support the critical statements. In this case, there is no valid consent of the person pictured to publish the images. Even if one understands the illustration as a contribution to a general discussion, the legitimate interest of the person portrayed in his or her privacy outweighs that of a press organ in the publication, since the image on display is torn from its (private) context as evidence for the critical expressions of opinion . "

Events

There are exceptions for events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Participants must expect to be photographed here. This is about what is happening and not about the person.

In a judgment of May 28, 2013, the Federal Court of Justice took a position on sporting events (Ref .: VI ZR 125/12):

“The publication of photo and video recordings at sporting events is permitted if their distribution does not harm the performers' legitimate interests.
Since the participants in sporting competitions have to prepare for photo and video recordings during the competition, the presence of a press photographer, the number of participants or the duration of the competition or tournament are not important. "

Police officers

If police officers are filmed or photographed while performing their duties, the personal details of the persons concerned may not be ascertained without further evidence of an impending legal violation. This would constitute an encroachment on the photographer's right to informational self-determination and therefore require the specific risk for police protection ( Federal Constitutional Court , judgment of July 24, 2015, Az. 1 BvR 2501/13). No suspicion of a later (possibly unlawful) publication can be derived from the production of images alone ( Federal Administrative Court , judgment of March 28, 2012, Az. 6 C 12.11).

People as accessories

According to § 23 KunstUrhG, the publication of images on which people appear only as accessories (e.g. people passing by by chance in front of a building that has been photographed) is permitted.

People of contemporary history

The requirement of consent to distribution and publication is restricted under German law in accordance with Section 23 (1) of the KunstUrhG for “ persons of contemporary history ”.

In the German jurisprudence a distinction between “absolute persons of contemporary history” and “relative persons of contemporary history” had become established, which, however, has been revised by the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Constitutional Court following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights . The more recent jurisprudence dispenses with the figures of the absolute or relative person of contemporary history and instead coined a graduated protection concept, according to which, in individual cases, it is to be examined whether the person's portrait can actually be assigned to contemporary history in a weighting and balancing of interests.

According to earlier jurisprudence, an absolute person in contemporary history was someone who stood out due to his position, actions or achievements and was therefore in the public eye in such a way that a special interest in information in the person himself, as well as in all processes that make up his participation in public life , existed ( Helmut Kohl , Caroline von Hannover , Boris Becker ). These people were allowed to be photographed and the material distributed and published without their consent .

According to earlier case law, relative persons in contemporary history were people who came into the public eye in connection with a contemporary historical event (for example, the victims of the Gladbeck hostage drama or athletes during a competition). Pictures of these people were only allowed to be published in connection with this event without their consent. According to the so-called companion jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice, the relative persons in contemporary history also included life partners or children of absolute persons in contemporary history. It was then possible to report on them in connection with a joint appearance, also without consent.

Images of police officers may not be published without their consent if the publication is not related to a police operation of particular public interest. This is the case, for example, in demonstrations, spectacular traffic accidents and similar events. There is usually no particular public interest in photo coverage of everyday work, such as a normal traffic control. A search of the house of an alleged criminal is usually not an event of particular public interest.

As a rule of thumb, the more a person is in the public interest, the sooner they have to tolerate reporting with images. However, the protection zone of the inviolable privacy and the lesser right to privacy also apply to these people. This restriction can already be found in Section 23 (2) of the KunstUrhG: The right to portray a person without consent does not extend “to a distribution or exhibition that violates a legitimate interest of the portrayed” and is in favor of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights of the people pictured have been further restricted.

A comparable weighing of interests can also be found in Section 32a of the Stasi Records Act .

Photo coverage of celebrities (paparazzi, Princess Caroline and the ECHR)

Private life and privacy are also protected against paparazzi, especially for people from contemporary history . According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court , this means “your own four walls” and areas of privacy in public, such as a dinner in a secluded corner of a restaurant ( Caroline von Monaco judgment II ).

In its judgment of June 24, 2004, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) referred to the “fundamental right to the protection of family and private life” ( Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ): According to this, celebrities do not have to go to a secluded place within the public withdraw to enjoy privacy protection. So did Caroline of Monaco with its appeal against the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court finally success (see also Caroline judgment ). The ruling was heavily criticized by the press and large parts of jurisprudence - it is feared that the so-called “boulevard” reporting could now be restricted if the public interest in information had to be traced back to a serious debate. On the other hand, judgments of the ECHR only have the rank of simple national law.

This ruling has led the Federal Court of Justice to revise the concept of absolute and relative persons in contemporary history in its decision of March 6, 2007, which summarized three injunctions by Caroline von Hannovers against two magazines. In place of the fixed prerequisites, there is now an individual decision as to whether a figure is considered to be historically relevant. The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed this view of the BGH as being compatible with the constitution in a decision of February 26, 2008.

The ECHR (Grand Chamber) confirmed these results of recent German case law in a judgment of February 7, 2012. He emphasized that, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, a public interest in information could also exist in sports topics or performing artists, but not in the case of alleged marital problems of a state president or financial problems of a well-known singer. The illness of the ruling Prince of Monaco should have been seen as an event from the field of contemporary history. In general, people unknown to the public require greater protection than people known to the public. The ECHR also found that Caroline and Ernst August von Hannover are public figures.

In parallel proceedings, the ECHR had to decide on the admissibility of reporting on drug use by a German actor. He emphasized that the public interest in reporting on criminal proceedings can vary. The weighing criteria for this question included: a. the familiarity and previous behavior of the person, the gravity and nature of the act, the circumstances of the arrest, the method of obtaining information, the truth of the information and the fact whether these facts were already publicly known.

The two most recent judgments are generally welcomed from a jurisprudential perspective, but at the same time also criticized because the ECHR continues to taboo so-called "mere entertainment" and does not consider the empirical findings of communication science when it comes to the question of the public interest in information regarding entertaining media reports . At the same time, this normative determination of the informational value of media reports surrenders freedom of opinion and the press to highly subjective judges' considerations, which contradicts the requirement of state neutrality.

Commercialization

In addition to the protection of privacy, there are other cases in which consent to publication is also required for people from contemporary history ( Section 23 (2) Art UrhG). To do this, there must be an overriding legitimate interest of the person concerned. This is always the case with advertising : the right to one's own image can be commercialized and has an asset. The image may not be misused for advertising or business purposes. The situation is different when an image is used to advertise a media product, for example when the front page of a magazine shows a celebrity and is advertised as an advertisement for the magazine.

For example, it would be prohibited to sell T-shirts or collection mugs with images of celebrities without their consent.

The Federal Court of Justice ruled in 1995 that Willy Brandt's widow had to posthumously tolerate his depiction on a commemorative coin; this judgment was upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2000 .

Manipulation of images

The Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 2004 on the occasion of caricaturing image manipulation:

“The bearer of the right of personality does not have the right to be perceived by third parties only as he would like to see himself, but he has a right that a photographed image is not manipulatively distorted if it is accessible to third parties without the consent of the person pictured is made. "

Consideration of artistic freedom

The unsolicited publication of works of art that contain the pictorial representation of people can lead to a collision of fundamental rights: On the one hand, the freedom of art guaranteed in the Basic Law prohibits a restriction of artistic activity, which also includes the publication of a work of art, on the other hand, this also applies to uphold fundamental rights of a person depicted. Works of art within the meaning of the Basic Law are primarily pictorial representations such as paintings, drawings or prints made with the means of art. Nowadays, however, photographs can also be included, provided that they meet artistic requirements.

The Art Copyright Act tries to resolve this conflict of interest. Section 23 (1) No. 4 KunstUrhG regulates that the consent of the person depicted is not required for publication if the distribution or exhibition serves a greater interest in art. However, Section 23 (2) of the KunstUrhG again contains a limit. Publication is prohibited if this violates a legitimate interest of the person depicted or, if he or she has died, his relatives.

This occasionally poses problems for the judiciary, because the fundamental rights of the people involved have to be weighed against each other. For example, the Higher Regional Court of Celle ruled on August 25, 2010 that a public prosecutor must tolerate the public exhibition of a factual, non-offensive portrait against his will. The public prosecutor had previously confiscated the painting and demanded that it be destroyed; the artist had invoked the freedom of art.

(Just) creating pictures

The mere creation of a photo without publishing it is not covered by § 22 KunstUrhG, which only speaks of distribution and public display. It was not originally forbidden. According to the current legal situation, however, the mere creation of a photo without the intention of publication - as it does not fall under Section 22 of the Art Copyright Act - is to be measured against the general right of personality . An overall assessment is necessary, in which the exceptions of § 23 KunstUrhG must also be taken into account. The Federal Court of Justice formulates it as follows: "Whether and to what extent the production of such images is illegal and inadmissible or is to be accepted by the person concerned can only be done under consideration of all circumstances of the individual case and by taking into account all legally, especially constitutionally protected Positions of the parties involved weighing of interests and interests can be determined. ”There are several judgments that prohibit the creation of photos without the intention of publication. If a violation of general personal rights is found, the usual civil law claims come into consideration. A criminal liability for the mere creation of pictures can also result from § 201a StGB, if a violation of the highly personal area of ​​life occurs during the recording.

Section 201a of the Criminal Code

On August 6, 2004, Section 201a of the Criminal Code (StGB) (“ Violation of the highly personal area of ​​life by taking pictures ”) came into force, which under certain circumstances already provides for criminal liability for mere creation. It was reformed on January 22, 2015, driven by the Edathy affair . Paragraphs 1 to 3 of 5 read:

(1) Anyone who is punished with a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine
1. creates or transmits an unauthorized image of another person who is in an apartment or a room that is specially protected from view and thereby violates the very personal area of ​​life of the person depicted,
2. a picture that shows the helplessness of another person, produces or transmits without authorization and thereby violates the very personal area of ​​life of the person depicted,
3. uses an image taken by an act according to numbers 1 or 2 or makes it accessible to a third person or
4. makes an authorized image recording of the type referred to in numbers 1 or 2 knowingly accessible to a third person without authorization and thereby violates the highly personal area of ​​life of the person depicted.
(2) Anyone who, without authorization, makes a picture of another person available to a third person that is likely to damage the image of the person depicted, is also punished.
(3) Anyone who takes a picture showing the nudity of another person under the age of eighteen is punished with a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine,
1. manufactures or offers to procure them to a third person for a fee, or
2. procured for himself or a third person for a fee.
(4) Paragraph 1 number 2, also in conjunction with paragraph 1 number 3 or number 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 do not apply to actions that are carried out in the safeguarding of overriding legitimate interests, namely art or science, research or teaching, serve to report on current affairs or history or similar purposes.
(5) The image carriers and image recording devices or other technical means used by the perpetrator or participant can be confiscated. Section 74a is to be applied.

The legislator justified the new offense with the fact that § 33 KunstUrhG (which criminalizes a violation of § 22 , § 23 KunstUrhG upon request) was not sufficient. Because this provision only punishes the dissemination and public display of unauthorized photographs, but not the unauthorized production and disclosure to third parties. In addition, the new paragraph ends the unequal treatment between the protection of the confidentiality of the word ( § 201 StGB) and the protection against unauthorized images.

Numerous media lawyers tried in vain to prevent the law from being passed during the legislative process. The regulation "hits the core of undercover journalism", writes investigative journalist Hans Leyendecker . Because journalists who film with a hidden camera, may now be punishable, so Leyendecker. In addition, the constituent elements of the "highly personal area of ​​life" and the "[against view] specially protected space" are new creations of the legislature, which the case law must first fill out. This initially creates legal uncertainty.

Right to cancellation

Even before the introduction of Section 201a of the Criminal Code, no one had to tolerate their private or intimate sphere being injured (for example by a secret webcam in a toilet).

The photographed person can also request the deletion of the picture if they have cause for concern that publication may be imminent, for example if the photographer has already published a picture of the person without consent.

According to the rulings of the Federal Court of Justice, intimate photos originally taken by mutual agreement also have the right to delete the photos if they were not intended for publication. The prerequisite is that the behavior of the person photographed indicates that the consent to use should be limited to the duration of the relationship.

Civil Law Claims

If the right to one's own picture has been violated by unauthorized publication, or if the unauthorized publication of a picture threatens, the person concerned can claim an injunction according to Section 12 , Section 862 , Section 1004 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 BGB, analogous to i. V. m. § 823 para. 2 i. V. m. Assert § 22 , § 23 KunstUrhG against the respective medium ( distributor liability ) to prevent the first publication of the picture or a repeated publication.

In addition, a claim for damages according to § 823 para. 2 i. V. m. § 22 , § 23 KunstUrhG exist. In addition to the replacement of the specific damage according to the so-called license analogy ( Section 97 (1) sentence 1 UrhG ), a fictitious license fee must be paid for the use of the image and any profit (due to increased circulation) must be surrendered. A good starting point for calculating the fictitious license fee for professional photo models is the VELMA list, published by the Association of Licensed Model Agencies. V.

If the right to one's own picture has been severely encroached upon as a result of the publication, for example by printing nude photos, there may also be a claim for monetary compensation for non-material damage (compensation for pain and suffering ). This is based on Section 823 (1) BGB i. V. m. Art. 1, Paragraph 1, Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and, in addition to the satisfaction function for the victim, should also have a preventive function for the infringer.

If the portraits were created without authorization, the surrender of the image material can also be demanded ( Section 1004, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 BGB analogously in conjunction with Section 823, Paragraph 1, Section 249, Paragraph 1 BGB, Section 38 KunstUrhG) or a claim Destruction according to § 37 KunstUrhG can be asserted.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

According to a notification from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the regulations for taking photos will continue to apply from May 25, 2018, including the General Data Protection Regulation :

“The General Data Protection Regulation does not lead to any significant changes in the previous legal situation in dealing with photographs. The creation and publication of a personal photograph is subject to the general regulations of data protection law. As before, photos may only be processed if the person concerned has consented or a legal basis allows this. […] The Art Copyright Act (KunstUrhG) contains additional regulations for the publication of photographs, which will continue to apply under the General Data Protection Regulation applicable from May 25, 2018. [...] "

The 15th civil senate of the Cologne Higher Regional Court was the first German court to pass a decision on this on June 18, 2018 (Ref .: 15 W 27/18). He takes the position that Article 85 GDPR allows national laws that differ from the GDPR in favor of processing for journalistic purposes. This opening clause not only allows new laws, but can also cover existing regulations. No strict standards are to be applied here, since data protection regulations, as protection that precede a possible occurrence of damage, would always impair journalistic work.
According to the OLG decision, the KunstUrhG continues to apply. In essence, Article 85 GDPR does not make any substantive legal requirements, but only focuses on finding an appropriate balance between data protection on the one hand and freedom of expression and communication on the other.

With regard to the publication of old film recordings from 1960, etc., the new data protection regulation of 2018 does not apply, since, as in this example in 1960, there was no GDPR.

See also

Country-specific details

literature

  • Thomas Haug: Photo coverage of celebrities. With special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2011, ISBN 978-3-8329-6528-0 .
  • Thomas Haug: Groundbreaking judgments of the ECHR on press law. Final defeat for Princess Caroline. In: Kommunikation & Recht , No. 3/2012, p. 1 (online) .
  • Hugo Keyßner: The right to one's own image. Guttentag, Berlin 1896 ( digitized ).
  • Alexander Metz: The right of celebrities to their own picture in collision with third-party interests. Especially against the background of the Caroline von Hannover case. Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 978-3-631-57604-5 (also dissertation, University of Cologne 2007).
  • Katrin Neukamm: Protection of portraits in Europe. At the same time a contribution to the importance of the constitutional traditions of the EU member states and the ECHR for the interpretation of the Union's fundamental rights. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-428-12587-6 (also dissertation, University of Münster 2006/2007).
  • Sybille Neumann-Klang: The right to one's own image from a comparative law perspective. Peter Lang, Frankfurt 1999, ISBN 978-3-631-34305-0 .
  • Bataa Temuulen: The right to one's own image. Legal historical development, protected interests, legal character and legal protection. Kovač, Hamburg 2006, ISBN 978-3-8300-2354-8 (also dissertation, University of Bayreuth 2006).
  • Endress Wanckel: Photo and image rights. Beck, 3rd edition, Munich 2009, ISBN 3-406-58102-1 .
  • Florian Wagenknecht, Dennis Tölle: Right on the picture . Guide to photo rights for photographers and creatives. dpunkt Press, Bonn 2012, ISBN 978-3-86490-010-5 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Bamberger, in: Beck'scher Online Comment BGB, Bamberger / Roth, 37th Edition, as of November 1, 2015, § 12 Rn. 106
  2. ↑ Marcel Bartnik: The protection of portraits in German and French civil law . 2003
  3. ↑ a b c Bamberger, in: Beck'scher Online Comment BGB, Bamberger / Roth, 37th Edition, as of November 1, 2015, § 12 Rn. 107
  4. ↑ Dreier / Schulze, UrhG, 1st edition 2004, § 22 KunstUrhG margin no. 3.
  5. ↑ Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, judgment v. December 23, 2008, Az. 11 U 21/08 - liability of a picture agency
  6. ↑ Regional Court Frankfurt am Main , judgment of January 19, 2006, Az. 2/03 O 468/05.
  7. ↑ online Regional Court Hamburg, decision of February 27, 2009  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Az. 324 O 703/08.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.lampmann-behn.de  
  8. ↑ OLG Munich, judgment of June 26, 2007
  9. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court, judgment of July 24, 2015, Az. 1 BvR 2501/13
  10. ↑ Federal Administrative Court, judgment of March 28, 2012, Az. 6 C 12.11
  11. ^ BGH judgment of July 3, 2007 (PDF; 86 kB), Az. VI ZR 164/06, full text.
  12. ↑ Criminal proceedings for the publication of the video of a house search
  13. ↑ Evidence from Thomas Haug, picture reporting on celebrities - with special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports , 2011, p. 94.
  14. ^ Evidence from Thomas Haug, picture reporting on celebrities - with special consideration of the admissibility of the judicial assessment of the informational value of media reports , 2011, pp. 89-92.
  15. ↑ consistent case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, cf. BVerfGE 19, 342 ; BVerfGE 22, 254 ; BVerfGE 25, 327 ; BVerfGE 35, 311 ; BVerfGE 74, 358 ; BVerfGE 82, 106 .
  16. ^ BGH judgment of March 6, 2007 , Az. VI ZR 51/06, full text, NJW 2007, 1977.
  17. ^ BGH judgment March 6, 2007, Az. VI ZR 51/06, NJW 2007, 1977.
  18. ↑ BVerfG decision of February 26, 2008 , Az. 1 BvR 1602/07, full text.
  19. ↑ ECHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012, Az. 40660/08 and 60641/08 (Von Hannover II) , Kommunikation und Recht 2012, 179.
  20. ↑ ECHR, Grand Chamber, judgment of February 7, 2012, Az. 39954/08 (Axel Springer AG) , Kommunikation und Recht 2012, 187.
  21. ↑ Thomas Haug, landmark judgments of the ECHR on press law - final defeat for Princess Caroline , communication and law, Editorial 3/2012.
  22. ↑ Thomas Haug, landmark judgments of the ECHR on press law - final defeat for Princess Caroline , communication and law, Editorial 3/2012.
  23. ^ BGH judgment of November 14, 1995 ( Memento of February 28, 1997 in the Internet Archive ), Az. VI ZR 410/94, full text.
  24. ↑ BVerfG decision of August 25, 2000 , Az. 1 BvR 2707/95, NJW 2001, 594 ff.
  25. ↑ cf. BVerfGE 97, 125 , 148 f .; BVerfGE 97, 391 , 403; permanent case
  26. ↑ 1 BVerfG of February 14, 2005 , Az. BvR 240/04 paras. 1 to 32.
  27. ↑ OLG Celle judgment of August 25, 2010 , Az. 31 Ss 30/10, full text.
  28. ↑ Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act 3rd edition 2008 § 22 Rn 12ff.
  29. ↑ Palandt § 823 Rn 112a.
  30. ↑ BGH, judgment of April 25, 1995 - VI ZR 272/94 -, NJW 1995, 1955, 1956 f.
  31. ↑ z. B. BGH, judgment of April 25, 1995 - VI ZR 272/94 -, NJW 1995, 1955, 1956 f .; VGH Mannheim, judgment of May 8, 2008 , Az. 1 S 2914/07, NVwZ-RR 2008, p. 700 f.
  32. ↑ 36th Criminal Law Amendment Act, Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2012.
  33. ↑ 49th Criminal Law Amendment Act
  34. ↑ https://strafverteidigung-hamburg.com/2363/der-neue-%C2%A7-201a-stgb/
  35. ↑ Süddeutsche Zeitung of September 3, 2004.
  36. ^ BGH, judgment of VI. Civil Senate of October 13, 2015 - VI ZR 271/14 -
  37. ↑ Buyout conditions ( Memento of the original from April 19, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 78 kB) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.velma-models.de
  38. ↑ FAQ on the General Data Protection Regulation Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Home Affairs, accessed on May 26, 2018.
  39. ↑ www.justiz.nrw.de
  40. ↑ dejure.org